No abstract

Aim This study was designed to evaluate a new technique for a completely diverting tube ileostomy achieved through temporary occlusion of the distal ileum using a flexible rubber strip. Methods This prospective interventional study was conducted in one centre. Patients who underwent colorectal resections with a primary anastomosis and who were deemed as requiring a defunctioning stoma were included in the study. After completion of resection and anastomosis, the tube ileostomy was fashioned by inserting a reinforced (spiral) endotracheal tube with an inner diameter of 7.5 mm into the ileum. To provide complete faecal diversion, temporary occlusion of the distal ileum was performed using a flexible rubber strip. The primary outcome of this study was the incidence of complete diversion achieved using this method. Results Fifty consecutive patients underwent a diverted tube ileostomy using the technique described above. Defaecation before removal of the strip did not occur in any of the patients inferring that complete diversion was observed in all patients (100%). The tube was removed at postoperative week 3. After tube removal, the resulting enterocutaneous fistulas closed spontaneously in a median of 6 (2–30) days. Conclusion The diverting tube ileostomy technique using an easily removable rubber strip to defunction the colorectal anastomosis is a safe and effective method that precludes the need to fashion a stoma.

Diverting ileostomies are commonly performed to prevent morbidity and mortality caused by colorectal anastomotic leakage. However, many complications may develop due to loop ileostomy itself and its reversal. In this study, we aimed to compare the outcomes of completely diverted tube ileostomy and conventional loop ileostomy. MethodsThe study was designed prospectively, and operations were performed by the same surgeon at a single center. Completely diverted tube ileostomy with the rubber strip was performed in 20 consecutive patients, and loop ileostomy was performed in the next 20 consecutive patients who needed diverting stoma. The primary outcome of the study is to compare the overall complication rates in both techniques. Length of hospital stay, achieving complete diversion, and length of time with a stoma were evaluated as secondary outcomes. ResultsThere were no significant differences in the demographic characteristics between the two groups. Complete diversion was achieved in both groups. The number of patients who developed any kind of complications during the observation period was significantly higher in the loop ileostomy group in comparison with the tube ileostomy group (13 (65%) versus 3 (15%), respectively (p=0.002)). The median time with a stoma was significantly higher in the loop ileostomy group compared to the tube ileostomy group (270 days (range: 56-443) versus 21 days (range: 14-28), respectively (p<0.001)). ConclusionCompletely diverted tube ileostomy causes fewer complications, provides a cost advantage, and does not require surgery for stoma closure.

Aim To report long-term oncological outcomes and organ preservation rate with a chemoradiotherapy-consolidation chemotherapy (CRT-CNCT) treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). Method Retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained database was performed. Oncological outcomes of mid-low LARC patients (n=60) were analyzed after a follow-up of 63 (50–83) months. Patients with clinical complete response (cCR) were treated with the watch-and-wait (WW) protocol. Patients who could not achieve cCR were treated with total mesorectal excision (TME) or local excision (LE). Results Thirty-nine (65%) patients who achieved cCR were treated with the WW protocol. TME was performed in 15 (25%) patients and LE was performed in 6 (10%) patients. During the follow-up period, 10 (25.6%) patients in the WW group had regrowth (RG) and 3 (7.7%) had distant metastasis (DM). Five-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were 90.1% and 71.6%, respectively, in the WW group. Five-year OS and DFS were 94.9% (95% CI: 88–100%) and 80% (95% CI: 55.2–100%), respectively, in the RG group. For all patients (n=60), 5-year TME-free DFS was 57.3% (95% CI: 44.3–70.2%) and organ preservation-adapted DFS was 77.5% (95% CI: 66.4–88.4%). For the WW group (n=39), 5-year TME-free DFS was 77.5% (95% CI: 63.2–91.8%) and organ preservation-adapted DFS was 85.0% (95% CI: 72.3–97.8%). Conclusion CRT-CNCT provides cCR as high as 2/3 of LARC patients. Regrowths, developed during follow-up, can be successfully salvaged without causing oncological disadvantage if strict surveillance is performed.

Aim: To reveal whether chemoradiotherapy-consolidation chemotherapy (CRT-CNCT) treatment provides more organ preservation in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and its effect on oncological outcomes. Method: Retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained database was performed. Oncological outcomes of mid-low LARC patients (n=60) were analyzed after a follow-up of 63 (50-83) months. Patients with clinical complete response (cCR) were treated with the watch-and-wait (WW) protocol. Patients who could not achieve cCR were treated with total mesorectal excision (TME) or local excision (LE). Results: Thirty-nine (65%) patients who achieved cCR were treated with the WW protocol. TME was performed in 15 (25%) patients and LE was performed in 6 (10%) patients. During the follow-up period, 10 (25.6%) patients in the WW group had regrowth (RG) and 3 (7.6%) had distant metastasis (DM). 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were 90.1% and 71.6%, respectively, in WW group. 5-y OS and DFS were 94.9% (95% CI: 88-100%) and 80% (95% CI: 55.2-100%), respectively, in the RG group. 5-y OS and DFS were 90.1% (95% CI: 78.9-100%) and 96.6% (95% CI: 89.9-100%) in the non-RG group. 5-y OS and DFS were 78% (95% CI: 55.8-100%) and 60% (95% CI: 35.2-84.8%) in TME group. Conclusion: CRT-CNCT ​​provides cCR as high as 2/3 of LARC patients. While the WW protocol provides organ preservation, RGs developed during follow-up can be successfully salvaged without causing oncological disadvantage.

Purpose Diverting ileostomies are commonly performed to prevent morbidity and mortality caused by colorecta lanastomotic leakage. However, many complications may develop due to loop ileostomy itself and its reversal. In this study, we aimed to compare the outcomes ofcompletely diverted tube ileostomy and conventional loopileostomy. Methods The study was designed prospectively, and operations were performed by the same surgeon at a single center. Completely diverted tube ileostomy with the rubber strip was performed in 20 consecutive patients and loop ileostomy was performed in the next 20 consecutive patients who needed diverting stoma. Theprimary outcome of the study is to compare the overall complication rates in both techniques. Length of hospital stay, achieving complete diversion, and length of time with a stoma were evaluated as secondary outcomes. Results There were no significant differences in the demographic characteristics between the two groups. Complete diversion was achieved in both groups. The number of patients who developed any kind ofcomplications during the observation period was significantly higher in the loopileostomy group in comparison with tube ileostomy group [13 (65%) vs 3 (15%)respectively, p = 0.002].Median time with stoma was significantly higherin loop ileostomy group compared to tube ileostomy group [270 days (56–443)vs 21 days (14–28) respectively, p < 0.001]. Conclusion Completely diverted tube ileostomy is superior to loop ileostomy for reasons such as lack of need for reversal surgery and fewer complications.

Aim To reveal whether chemoradiotherapy-consolidation chemotherapy (CRT-CNCT) treatment provides more organ preservation in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and its effect on oncological outcomes. Method Retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained database was performed. Oncological outcomes of mid-low LARC patients (n = 60) were analyzed after a follow-up of 63 (50–83) months. Patients with clinical complete response (cCR) were treated with the watch-and-wait (WW) protocol. Patients who could not achieve cCR were treated with total mesorectal excision (TME) or local excision (LE). Results Thirty-nine (65%) patients who achieved cCR were treated with the WW protocol. TME was performed in 15 (25%) patients and LE was performed in 6 (10%) patients. During the follow-up period, 10 (25.6%) patients in the WW group had regrowth (RG) and 3 (7.6%) had distant metastasis (DM). 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were 90.1% and 71.6%, respectively, in WW group. 5-y OS and DFS were 94.9% (95% CI: 88–100%) and 80% (95% CI: 55.2–100%), respectively, in the RG group. 5-y OS and DFS were 90.1% (95% CI: 78.9–100%) and 96.6% (95% CI: 89.9–100%) in the non-RG group. 5-y OS and DFS were 78% (95% CI: 55.8–100%) and 60% (95% CI: 35.2–84.8%) in TME group. Conclusion CRT-CNCT provides cCR as high as 2/3 of LARC patients. While the WW protocol provides organ preservation, RGs developed during follow-up can be successfully salvaged without causing oncological disadvantage.